Use: a tool by which you can manage player perceptions to create the appearance of systems, even when none exist.

Story branches that converge

Dialogue trees with no actual choice

Descriptions of AI behavior that don't actually correspond to the gameplay

Specific example: In Bioshock, splicers never (except in scripted circumstances) prey on Little Sisters, but the player is told they do because this justifies the existence of the Big Daddies.

General example: Purported specialist enemy types that actually run identical code, and are distinct only in the player's mind.

Specific example: Simlish is procedural nonsense, a mere 30 lines of code - and yet players have tried to learn to understand it.

Specific example: Star Wars Galaxies would occasionally, with no context whatsoever, inform the player that s/he had progressed on the path of the Force. This happened for no reason whatsoever related to gameplay - neither the player's actions nor those of the NPCs had any effect, nor did the message precede any change in the workings of the game. It was a message that meant and did nothing.

Players are fascinated by mysteries more than by explanations - a locked door that can never be opened may save dev time and create mystery for the player, but the appropriate context must be applied or it'll definitely look like laziness. Example: the Combine locking down the city in Half Life 2.

The act of naming creates attachment, as in Pokemon or Viva Pinata.

You dog in Fable 2 will behave differently only in terms of aesthetics (animation, audio) based on whether it likes you or not, but this won't affect gameplay at ALL. It still fights for you and searches for treasure in the same manner, but players will think that maintaining a good relationship with the dog is advantageous somehow.

"It's MY weighted companion cube!" - there was nothing about the cube itself that made it special except for the hearts on it and GlaDOS saying that this one belonged to the player. Players who resisted disposing of the cube demonstrated an attachment to it which, given the futility of the player's actions in the game's story, played into the feeling of being manipulated by GlaDOS.

On the other hand, the treatise on the power of human choice in the "Would You Kindly" scene from Bioshock led to an expectation that I had a choice not to kill Andrew Ryan, although I didn't. This broke flow for me since at this point he clearly wasn't the real villain of the story and I genuinely didn't want to kill him. Had the illusion of a choice been presented, Ryan could have died through some accident after his life had been spared, which would have at least given legitimacy to the player's desire not to kill him.

AI is difficult/expensive to build, as are multiple paths through the story. Dialogue options that go nowhere can at least acknowledge other paths, which beats pretending they don't exist when a player may well have thought "Well wait, why didn't my NPC friend just go take care of that since he's immune to the dangers and I'm not?" (Fallout 3?)

When playtesters notice mechanics that weren't planned, the developer can make it real OR add to the illusion and capitalize on what's already there.

Since emotional response is entirely individual, it's important to monitor the player community.

Ask yourself: when cutting a mechanic due to expense, can you still suggest to the player that it exists and get the benefits without the cost?

BIG PITFALL: If players pick up on the fact that a perceived mechanic is missing, they will HATE you for it.

Johnny Richardson's notes:

Illusionary gameplay is things which players think are gameplay but don’t actually exist

Ties in with literary theories

Book is collaboration between words on page and how reader interprets them

Examples

Thief: The Dark Project—players said, always headshot the guards! Not really a part of the game’s engine. It was just that guards were unaware of you for damage bonus

Planescape – players said there were multiple endings. There is only one, but players swear the music changes based on what they did

It’s the player’s CONSCIOUSNESS

Also happened with BioShock

D&DO: players think that using diplomacy on chests gives more loot. Untrue!

Players project what they want to hear conversation into of Simlish

People think AI cheats in Puzzle Quest

Emotional experience being projected into a game.

City of Heroes tweaked their random # generator for battles so there were caveats to hitting more.

WoW loot drops now ramp up.

Player expectation can bite you

When a quest says its objective is urgent, usually it isn’t! What happens when it actually is (e.g. AI dies, “timer” ends)

If you don’t explain to player what a system is doing, they perceive it as random

2k Boston motto: “No simulation without representation!”

Players will perceive systems as random otherwise

Player perception can aid in adding content where none actually exists